Furious - need some clarity

[tasha99]

I'm guessing that the drama on HR and the doctor's part comes from the doctor's licensure. If she gets charged, she will no longer be able to check the "no" box when asked if she has ever been charged with a crime other than a minor traffic violation (I'm just guessing that's on her application as it's a pretty standard question). Pretty sure hit and run doesn't count as minor. Doubt it would prevent her from maintaining her license, but explaining it would be a PITA that she richly deserves.

I actually think it should affect her license--she has proven that she is willing to cause others harm and scoot away without taking responsibility. I would not want someone like that treating me, or especially cutting on me.

 

[LisaR]

I'm not sure why there is so much drama here. Someone hit a car and went about their day, that person was found out and will face consequences. The doctor is in the wrong but the OP needs to just chill and let the insurance company take care of it and not get worked up.

As for HR getting involved, there is obviously now tension between two employees as a result of the doctor's actions. Since I'm assuming everyone involved is a rational adult HR probably just wants to sit them down and put the drama to rest. No need to get all worked up with the "what if" scenarios before the fact.



Oh my God, a rational response in which the sky isn't falling. A rarity here on the Dis for sure.

For me, the drama comes because this is a doctor. If this had been another peon employee, I have no doubt HR would have simply followed the procedure which sounds like it would be terminating the employee (I'm not saying I agree with termination but if that is the policy, so be it). Instead, they find out the employee is a doctor and they don't want to fire someone in that position over a car accident. So now, they are arranging a meeting and trying to work something out between the two parties. It shouldn't work this way. There is a clear policy in place. HR needs to follow it. It is up to them. It isn't up to the doctor or the OP'er. HR needs to do what they need to do and insurance needs to handle the rest. The fact that they aren't is concerning.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

OP, you asked for clarity. Unfortunately, you came to the wrong place and instead are getting drama and conspiracy theories. Do yourself a favor and stop feeding the drama by posting these updates. People (grown up people) deal with these situations. Unfortunately, you now have an audience who, under the guise of protecting you, are likely only to raise your blood pressure.

It is unfortunate that some people have little else in their lives and want to inject drama into your situation. Go to the meeting and try to resolve the situation. If you want to file a complaint with the police then do so. If you want to hire a lawyer then do so (though if you are struggling to pay a deductible I cannot see how hiring a lawyer is in the cards.)

I am a lawyer and I get "urgent" calls every day (or at least urgent to the caller.) In most cases things are resolved as they should be and people get worried only to find that things can be worked out.

Exactly my point.

Funny how the lawyers on this board are telling her not to "lawyer up".

 

[PrincessKsMom]

My reason for telling her to lawyer up was because I believe, if push comes to shove, they will look to let the OP go. Somehow they'll find a way of either using her pregnancy against her or suddenly finding something that will lead them to let her go, so they don't have to lose a doctor or pay someone to be out on maternity leave. Better that she at least consult with an attorney to get some feedback as to local employment laws.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I find it odd that HR wants to facilitate a meeting . . . with all parties. Keep calm and factually address the matter. Explain how you were very disconcerted to have the doctor attempt to coerce you and then attempt to detain you from leaving. Remind them she is a stranger and the situation leaves you feeling harassed and threatened.

Simply tell them you wish her to leave you in peace and you would like the insurance companies to sort things out, end of story. Short, sweet, simple, direct, all businesslike. Anything else undermines your position.

I don't find it odd at all. There's a "situation" between two employees and they want to make sure it doesn't become exacerbated.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Oh, if they should ask what you want to happen to resolve it at the facility, refer them to their policy. Ask them what does it say? Then ask them what would happen if the situation was reversed. Should be a very interesting meeting.

ETA: Just be careful. HR has the doc's back. They showed that in their actions. This is just a "lets make nice" meeting, and sweep it away with your blessings. I think that's the objective. HR is kind of on the hook, because they told you the policy and they aren't following it. So both the doctor and HR are squirming now. It's a mess.

Nope, not a good idea. Deal with the situation that exists, not hypotheticals. Idea is to make the workplace less hostile, and getting the HR rep upset doesn't facilitate that.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

The main thing is to get everyone agreeing to cooperate with your insurance company and get your car fixed without anything out of your pocket and not on your record. Also no contact except through the insurance company.

Agreed.

 

[HM]

I don't find it odd at all. There's a "situation" between two employees and they want to make sure it doesn't become exacerbated.

But, didn't OP already state that HR did not know that the doctor had confronted her at her car? So, they don't know that there is a 'situation' between two employees. They only know that the doctor employee perpetrated a hit-and-run on another employee's car in the office parking lot. They should really not be involved in that part, that's for insurance and the police. Security could be involved...in giving the video evidence, but not HR.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Yes, that's right... I hadn't mentioned that.
If you are supposed to give up your lunch, that is also VERY inappropriate, and probably not quite legal.

Please find a co-worker, your husband, somebody who can support you and help you deal with this today.

At this point, I am agreeing with your husband.
It might be time to seek some legal counsel.

You have requested that you do not want any further contact, and their response is to have you give up your required break to meet with her, personally, in their office.
NOT OKAY.

I don't know what the OP's job title is, but ...as a salaried employee, not one who works for an hourly wage, I've given up my lunch hour many times for company business.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

What if you had been a patient at the hospital instead of an employee? Would HR call in the patient and the doctor to work it out?? I'm guessing the answer would be NO! I don't understand the need for the two parties to come together under the guide of HR who is very likely on the side of the doctor. I would not attend the meeting and I would tell HR to handle anything they need to handle based on the policy of the hospital. It really should be that simple.

Very very different situation. OP has to go to work in the same place as this doctor, and needs to ensure that the situation creates a hostile work environment. this is what HR is there for.

 

[Sanchez]

For me, the drama comes because this is a doctor. If this had been another peon employee, I have no doubt HR would have simply followed the procedure which sounds like it would be terminating the employee (I'm not saying I agree with termination but if that is the policy, so be it). Instead, they find out the employee is a doctor and they don't want to fire someone in that position over a car accident. So now, they are arranging a meeting and trying to work something out between the two parties. It shouldn't work this way. There is a clear policy in place. HR needs to follow it. It is up to them. It isn't up to the doctor or the OP'er. HR needs to do what they need to do and insurance needs to handle the rest. The fact that they aren't is concerning.

You are jumping to conclusions despite knowing little or nothing about the situation.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

For me, the drama comes because this is a doctor. If this had been another peon employee, I have no doubt HR would have simply followed the procedure which sounds like it would be terminating the employee (I'm not saying I agree with termination but if that is the policy, so be it). Instead, they find out the employee is a doctor and they don't want to fire someone in that position over a car accident. So now, they are arranging a meeting and trying to work something out between the two parties. It shouldn't work this way. There is a clear policy in place. HR needs to follow it. It is up to them. It isn't up to the doctor or the OP'er. HR needs to do what they need to do and insurance needs to handle the rest. The fact that they aren't is concerning.

I work for a Fortune 500 company. One with an employee handbook the size of Montana.

We had an employee in my department who clearly violated company policy. The handbook says you can get fired for doing what she did. She was not fired for that incident.

My point is, the policy may not be as crystal clear as the OP thinks it is. the doctor is not going to be fired over this. The "peon" might not have been fired, either.

HR's role is to facilitate a solution to workplace "issues". There is an obvious "issue" here. They're doing their job.

 

[FireDancer]

But, didn't OP already state that HR did not know that the doctor had confronted her at her car? So, they don't know that there is a 'situation' between two employees. They only know that the doctor employee perpetrated a hit-and-run on another employee's car in the office parking lot. They should really not be involved in that part, that's for insurance and the police. Security could be involved...in giving the video evidence, but not HR.

Until the meeting the OP doesn't know what HR does or doesn't know. They might know of the meeting from security or another employee or they may only know that there was an accident on the company's property and they want to make sure the two employees will have no future drama because of it.

Everything that happens at work or on company property is an HR issue. It might also be a legal issue but it is always an HR issue. It is also easier to just meet with everyone involved at the same time than have one meeting, then another, then a third because something said in the second doesn't match up with something in the first...you get the idea.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

My reason for telling her to lawyer up was because I believe, if push comes to shove, they will look to let the OP go. Somehow they'll find a way of either using her pregnancy against her or suddenly finding something that will lead them to let her go, so they don't have to lose a doctor or pay someone to be out on maternity leave. Better that she at least consult with an attorney to get some feedback as to local employment laws.

This retaliatory firing is really very hypothetical at this juncture.

Seems to me HR wanted to talk with the OP before OP reported the matter to her insurer, to see if something could be worked out "in house". OP filed an insurance claim and made a police report, she no longer has control over whether the matter gets reported. what else can HR do at this point to protect the doctor?

I'd be more concerned for OP if she didn't go to the meeting, it looks like she's being uncooperative.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

But, didn't OP already state that HR did not know that the doctor had confronted her at her car? So, they don't know that there is a 'situation' between two employees. They only know that the doctor employee perpetrated a hit-and-run on another employee's car in the office parking lot. They should really not be involved in that part, that's for insurance and the police. Security could be involved...in giving the video evidence, but not HR.

They know there's a "situation", just not the full extent of it. Now is the time for OP to make them aware of what doctor did in the parking lot.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Very very different situation. OP has to go to work in the same place as this doctor, and needs to ensure that the situation creates a hostile work environment. this is what HR is there for.

Exactly...
While the OP sounds hormonal and 'dramatic'...
The guilty party here is creating every single bit of the drama.

I have NOT created any drama (as the one poster so clearly accuses).
I have, from the very beginning of this thread, advised the OP to steer clear. As have many others.

And, to those who think that advising the OP to watch her back is creating drama, over-reacting, etc....
Women lose their jobs because of situations like this. All the time.
Situations involving somebody with higher rank, or better consideration with the powers that be. Woman, who, like the OP, truly do need the paycheck to feed their family... the insurance, because they are pregnant or have other medical concerns, etc...

To those who are not seeing the possibility that the OP is in a precarious situation here and needs to proceed carefully, with no personal interaction with the guilty party except for what is necessary. I truly believe that there is a lot here that you are not really seeing.

 

[LisaR]

You are jumping to conclusions despite knowing little or nothing about the situation.

I'm not jumping to conclusions! Are you telling me that HR doesn't have a policy in place in most work environments (especially a large hospital)? They have a policy. They need to follow it. It really is that simple. Facilitating a meeting between the two parties when they don't even know about the confrontation is likely not in the handbook. Follow the policy as written and there wouldn't be any need for drama.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I'd be more concerned for OP if she didn't go to the meeting, it looks like she's being uncooperative.

It is not a meeting with HR that is the problem.

She should have no obligation to actually interact with the guilty party in the same room as this meeting.

Each employee should be able to expect a private meeting....
Those in HR know 100% about privacy issues at work.
Especially in a medical facility.
As the above poster here, I would expect 100% that this is layed out in the official policy.

Any additional personal contact should be completely voluntary.

 

[LisaR]

I work for a Fortune 500 company. One with an employee handbook the size of Montana.

We had an employee in my department who clearly violated company policy. The handbook says you can get fired for doing what she did. She was not fired for that incident.

My point is, the policy may not be as crystal clear as the OP thinks it is. the doctor is not going to be fired over this. The "peon" might not have been fired, either.

HR's role is to facilitate a solution to workplace "issues". There is an obvious "issue" here. They're doing their job.

I don't doubt that there are exceptions to the rule. However, the way to work it out is between HR and the OP'er and then HR and the doctor. It isn't up to the OP'er to sit through a meeting and discuss how the situation will be handled. Follow the policy....or make an exception, if they so choose, and move on.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I don't doubt that there are exceptions to the rule. However, the way to work it out is between HR and the OP'er and then HR and the doctor. It isn't up to the OP'er to sit through a meeting and discuss how the situation will be handled. Follow the policy....or make an exception, if they so choose, and move on.

The OP is a ViCTIM here....
Since when it is EVER appropriate to mandate that a victim sit and make nice, face to face, with the guilty party.

I seriously can't believe that anyone can see any other side to this issue.